Comparing the efficiency of forest mitigation strategies: climate change and windthrow as overarching drivers

Context Forests are being scrutinized for their capacity to store large amounts of carbon over long periods and for their contribution regarding climate change mitigation. However the interactions between climate change, forest management, and wind disturbances could challenge management strategies based on setting aside forests. Objectives This study aimed to compare the contribution of forests to mitigation according to three opposing strategies of forest management differing by their share area set aside (SA) from wood procurement: SA0, business as usual management; SA30, 30% of the forest areas are set aside; and SA100, 100% of the forest areas are set aside. Methods A dynamic forest landscape model (LandClim) was used to compare the effects of different management strategies on the potential for forest mitigation. The model outputs were used to quantify the potential for carbon sequestration and substitution under RCP2.6 and RCP8.5 climate scenarios. Results Under the RCP2.6 climate, the highest carbon storage capacity was achieved by the SA100 management. Wind-induced losses in the SA0 and SA30 remained at similar magnitudes until 2120. Thus, under RCP2.6 climate, the effects of substitution from SA0 exceeded the increase in storage expected from SA100. Under the RCP8.5 climate, stocks increased for three decades but then collapsed. The management strategy did not influence these losses, which were negligible after 2080 owing to the very small standing stocks. Conclusions Strategies based on setting aside forests for carbon storage could be a viable solution in RCP2.6 climate. However, windthrow events strongly limit their potential.